|
|
|
Distinguished Toastmaster
BUSINESS & BRANDING COACH . LIFE & LEADERSHIP STRATEGIST MOTIVATIONAL SPEAKER SERVING ENTREPRENEURS & MAIN STREET |
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CONGRESS NEEDS TO SET “FIDUCIARY” DEFINITIONS ASIDE & PUT CONS THAT VIOLATE FIDUCIARY WHERE COPS CAN FIND THEM (c) Carrie Devorah:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CONGRESS NEEDS TO SET “FIDUCIARY” DEFINITIONS ASIDE & PUT CONS THAT VIOLATE FIDUCIARY WHERE COPS CAN FIND THEM (c) Carrie Devorah:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
gThe Committee On Ways and Means hosting a hearing on the Department of Labor’s proposed fiduciary rule is frightening.
The DOL has chosen to freezer tray definition of the word, “fiduciary.” This conversation of “fiduciary” has less to do with a definition of a word or market performance than it has to do with what happens after the crime of Breach of Fiduciary, 401k, broker, brokerage, investment advisor, financial consultant, arbitrator, mediator even lawyer have been discovered.
Wikipedia defines “Fiduciary” as “A fiduciary is a person who holds a legal or ethical relationship of trust with one or more other parties (person or group of persons). Typically, a fiduciary prudently takes care of money or other asset for another person. One party, for example a corporate trust company or the trust department of a bank, acts in a fiduciary capacity to the other one, who for example has entrusted funds to the fiduciary for safekeeping or investment. Likewise, asset managers —including managers of pension plans, endowments and other tax-exempt assets— are considered fiduciaries under applicable statutes and laws.[1] In a fiduciary relationship, one person, in a position of vulnerability, justifiably vests confidence, good faith, reliance, and trust in another whose aid, advice or protection is sought in some matter.;[2] In such a relation good conscience requires the fiduciary to act at all times for the sole benefit and interest of the one who trusts.”
Advisors are “fiduciaries”, there should be no question of that. Freezer tray? The term describes how Congress tends to compartmentalize and freeze out co-morbidity criminal fiduciary behaviors. Congress must expand the reach of this conversation to all aspects of the financial industry- broker, dealer, investment advisor- and, to insurance, too. Someone in Congress decided to include Insurance under the umbrella of the Securities Commissions. Why? I have a good answer that I never could have thought of…. Because the insurance companies invest clients premiums to make “what if” money. Hearing that, was the first time I understood the role of AIG in the market crash of 2008. The ‘house’ so to speak was gambling with client entrusted paid premiums, so “fiduciary” extends to the Insurance industry, too, in this Congressional conversation.
The best interest clause is not assumed or presumed, it is a requirement of someone who takes on responsibility of someone else’s “other,” in this case, money.
It does not occur to consumers that someone they know, read about or were introduced to can argue no legal obligation to trusting oversight of hard earned savings. Lawyers hired by thieving financial consultants- brokers, dealers, investment advisors- do a bang up job of arguing for accused clients, that no “fiduciary” obligation existed, an argument making one wonder what planet the lawyer got their legal degree from.
It is not in the nature of the trusting financial advisor client to hand over entrusted hard earned dollars needed for retirement to some stranger just because ‘they are a nice guy.’ Hard earned cash is handed over because a pitch has been made to the consumer with the representation of there being a return, a performance of “fiduciary.”
There are no effective requirements and laws in place that will help a consumer know better and faster if the customer is being played by a con:
Bernard Madoff. 401K or otherwise, does it make a difference when the end game, ends the same, fleeced, spirit broken.
Some securities commissions have hyperlinked to F.I.N.R.A. The FSC, financial securities committee stated they do not authorize private business.
Oh, yes they did, intentionally or unintentionally, Congress did, F.I.N.R.A. a big part of Congress’ fiduciary problem. F.I.N.R.A. is where fiduciaries go when they want to get away with a financial crime. Lawyers? They have an even sweeter way of getting away from fiduciary fraud. Lawyers threaten a complainant with defamation litigation or have others make calls on the lawyers behalf, off the written record.
As with many industries, people have been forced to hyphenate careers. In the financial industry, a 401(k) financial consultant can also be cross licensed as a broker, a dealer, and investment advisor and a baker and a candlestickmaker, as the expression goes.
F.I.N.R.A., the only broker-dealer regulator that the S.E.C. approved, even though Congress provided for competition, structured a sweet set up that confuses a customer’s legal complaint. F.I.N.R.A. has no oversight of Investment advisor complaints. That said F.I.N.R.A. boasts on its website to having 99.9% handling of investment client complaints in F.I.N.R.A.’s dispute resolution forum. There are over 70 F.I.N.R.A.’s dispute resolution forums around the country and, even, M.O.U.’s signed with Canada, Hong Kong, England and other countries.
A client who signs with an investment advisor is led to believe they are handling an investment advisor, not knowing their fiduciary will claim to be a broker and a client of a brokerage, hence, according to F.I.N.R.A. when legal push comes to financial shove.
It is a sweet deal for the financial consultant. The claim against the financial consultant is hid from public and law enforcement knowledge.
It is not a sweet deal for the client. Their claim against the financial consultant is hid from public and law enforcement knowledge where it could alert other harmed and potential clients of this bad fiduciaries crimes and alleged crimes.
F.I.N.R.A. alleges that F.I.N.R.A. has no responsibility to confirming if a forced arbitration is in the correct forum. The correct forum for a complaint against an investment advisor is the courts or a J.A.M.S. or Fed Arb dispute resolution forum.
Congress in a strange moment created Brokercheck for F.I.N.R.A. to hide crimes behind. Congress did not require that Brokercheck state, in letters that should be large enough to be read by seeing impaired people, that F.I.N.R.A. is a 501(c )(6) business league non-profit that the I.R.S. requires to collect dues from the business league members. Congress does not require the F.I.N.R.A. broker check to state, in large letters on page 1, that the information is provided by the F.I.N.R.A. dues paying member and is not vetted out by F.I.N.R.A., that civil and other actions against and by the financial fiduciary and may not be truthful, factual or complete. Congress did not require the S.R.O. to require its ‘member’ to file all those relevant documents in to the public record for review. Those documents are not see in F.I.N.R.A. arbitration and mediations. F.I.N.R.A. case managers and arbitrators have a success rate of not compelling Discovery of the F.I.N.R.A. member being sued, while at the same time forcing financial and personal exposure of the investment client who thought they had fiduciary oversight, in to the F.I.N.R.A. record that is then shared in the financial network even with the firm or financial consultant the client was complaining against.
F.I.N.R.A., where fiduciaries run to for cover, is the Vegas of the financial world. What goes in to F.I.N.R.A. does not come out.
What good is the balance and check to fiduciary if the financial advisors history is hidden, if the voting record of the arbitrators and mediators is hidden, if the case decisions by arbitrators and mediators are not published. W.I.P.O., the world intellectual property organization, publishes its list of arbitrators, mediators and their decisions online. The S.E.C. publishes its proceedings online. Why doesn’t Congress force the same of F.I.N.R.A. that is approved by the S.E.C., after all F.I.N.R.A. claims quasi government status at the same time alleging that F.I.N.R.A. is authorized by an act of Congress.
The point to take away is that with all the minutia that Congress is nitpicking on here, what needs to be addressed is how this rogue private entity is what the investment client is being misled in to. To hell with arguing “fiduciary standard” if where that argument takes place is in a forum that has been deceiving Congress for years, testifying before Congress, lobbying Congress, all in the name of investor protection.
Scenarios alluded to above are not hypothetical. I learned the hard way about being a trusting client entrusting my life savings to a fiduciary. I learned the hard way that fiduciary is a debate term for lawyers after monies are stolen. I learned the hard way that a client’s loss, a client’s suffering from being betrayed is not a thought of consideration in the process. I learned the hard way that as great a loss of funds stolen is how a client is left feeling- broken trying to figure out what they didn’t see, what they should have asked, and how did this happen to me, what is wrong with me.
I learned the hard way that even if one asks all the right questions there is always one more question the client did not know to ask after all, F.I.N.R.A., S.I.P.C., N.A.S.A.A., P.I.A.B.A. even the S.E.C. give false sense of representation hence a misplaced sense of trust. Ask clients the meaning of the words a member of FINRA and SIPC on the financial statement form. Clients assume those words are a Good HouseKeeping Seal of Approval. No. I learned the hard way all those words mean are just that, they are a member. There is no intent the firm or financial consultant is honest.
I learned the hard way that F.I.N.R.A. does ‘clean’ up backgrounds of financial consultants to whom life savings are entrusted.
I learned the hard way that F.I.N.R.A. on the way out of a F.I.N.R.A. proceeding, if the investor wants to get pennies back on their lost dollars sought, seeks expungment of claims against a fiduciary financial consultant who is misled in to the F.I.N.R.A. D.R.S. process.
I learned the hard way that F.I.N.R.A. on the way in to a F.I.N.R.A. D.R.S. proceeding that F.I.N.R.A. requires a confidentiality agreement of the proceedings, a silencer with a penalty if the proceedings “confidence” is violated.
I learned the hard way that F.I.N.R.A. misleads the court of the legal oversight of F.I.N.R.A. Dispute Resolution. One would hope the Courts actually did diligence to read paperwork and do research as to case precedence or correctness. They do not, partially blamed on how burned the courts are with cases. Part of the problem is F.I.N.R.A. is writing its own rules. Let me explain. A recent appellee to the D.C. court showed the court that F.I.N.R.A. says that F.I.N.R.A. D.R.S. is compliant to the F.A.A., the Federal Arbitration Act. The Federal Arbitration Act states it is relevant to Maritime Law. The A.B.A. had not been asked the question before to think about it.
I learned the hard way to think about things like that. As shared with the A.B.A. and others, financial fiduciaries are licensed on state by state, hence should be adjudicated under State Law, under the U.C.C., the Universal Commercial Code that does provide for investment consultant disputes. Financial fiduciaries are not licensed federally.
I learned the hard way that F.I.N.R.A. has distorted Congress’ intentions of the Investment Protector Act of 1933. Any and all D.R.S. that F.I.N.R.A. has overseen have hidden crimes by fiduciaries away from law enforcement, FINCEN and Congress.
Congress can get a grasp of those numbers. F.I.N.R.A. won’t produce them. Some, not all, F.I.N.R.A. disciplinary actions are locatable here, http://www.finra.org/industry/disciplinary-actions, at least until as far back as 1996. The complaints that are expunged, going through the F.I.N.R.A. process or the ones that F.I.N.R.A. states happened by circumventing the F.I.N.R.A. process, without F.I.N.R.A. knowing, can still be found. There are ways.
Try looking up Bernard Madoff. Madoff was a fiduciary, too. F.I.N.R.A. stated in 2009 that F.I.N.R.A. had no idea of Madoff’s crimes. Bernie said “they did.” Mr. Madoff told the truth http://www.centerforcopyrightintegrity.com/congress-created-madoff.html “They knew” Madoff was selling No Product as far back as 1963.
Problem was and still is that Congress wrote the laws that makes this conversation over “fiduciary” moot. Congress set benchmarks of $25,000 and $100,000 of fines along with temporary disbarment for crimes you and I got to jail for, for crimes far greater than the cigarette selling that put Eric Garner “I cant breathe” in to the system. Mr. Garner was fingerprinted, had his mug shot taken, was locked up, lost his right to vote, had to check the box when he came out of prison then saw recidivism as his only option to making a living while Madoff and the others that F.I.N.R.A. did not turn in to law enforcement were recidivis, too, stealing from clients until they, too, like Madoff turned themselves in or like Wolf Of Wall Street got caught for something that led to their financial crimes being discovered.
The death of Eric Garner lies on Congress. Cops would rather go after Madoffs than Eric. Congress has a fiduciary to, acknowledging that telling the S.E.C. to send cases to the U.S. Attorney without understand the S.E.C. system is plain dumb.
The S.E.C. like Congress is neutered. Congress and the S.E.C. lack the power to lock thieving fiduciaries up for crimes perpetrated against trusting people. Congress needs cops.
Congress needs to understand the S.E.C. is run like a business. Meetings are held to discuss what case has potential to be sexy and look good in the public eye. Then of those cases, the S.E.C. attorneys are limited with what information they get access to, moreso, when the people that are wronged are under the misbelief that F.I.N.R.A. has weight behind a F.I.N.R.A. award that the Courts, blindly see as binding and authentic when it is not, harming persons that F.I.N.R.A. shut down. Congress needs to get a grasp on what is real in the world.
The legal fiduciary lacks too. One would think lawyers actually dug documents. They don’t. Investigators do. Lawyers look at case precedence. As do judges. Lawyers, well, there is that breed that races cases around the country hoping some paper shifting gets a case settled, fast, before on to the next case. The fact is that despite F.I.N.R.A.s website stating lawyers must conform to local rule, F.I.N.R.A. has fanned that falsehood letting lawyers who are not licensed in the local jurisdiction the consumer case against the fiduciary has been assigned to commence interstate communication to argue the matter, possibly settle the matter, all the while not being licensed under local law.
The greater tragedy is that most local bar associations, U.S. attorneys, city attorneys, law enforcement, legislators. etc who all have fiduciary to their residents have never heard of F.I.N.R.A.
The even greater tragedy is that across the country all local securities commissions are misled to believe that F.I.N.R.A. is government not a business league, a private non profit business, the “New NASD Holding Co.” is how it is described in publicly filed papers.
The greatest tragedy is the team that wrote the Counts up against Madoff did not know of the priors that F.I.N.R.A. had in the F.I.N.R.A. record.
Congress needs to know the waste of the investment of time into parsing “fiduciary” before the crime has happened. Criminals always find, yet another way, to break the laws. Congress needs to invest time into mitigating harm to clients breached by a fiduciary. It is like getting robbed a second time when lawyers and others use the law to keep matters out of the Courts, fingering clients as the bad one, publicly shamed in records. I learned the hard way.
A breached person needs a simpler way to cut through the rabbit holes we are sent through, rules that cannot run more than x pages, rules that are written in simple plain English a 5th grader can read. That is what the fiduciary breacher counts on, the lawyer who wanted quick settlement counts on, the business league the breacher and the lawyer belong to. They count on the supposed safeguards like ethics committees to protect them to. Do you want to know the definition of an ethics committee? It is a .org, a (dot) org, a non profit most likely itself a business league that collects business from its members in order to subsist. The harmed investor/ 401K owner is not their concern nor allegiance.
The fiduciary that needs to be implemented here is not the definition of this word “fiduciary” applied only to 401K’s but the interpretation of the word “fiduciary” as it needs to be reviewed- from the top, Congress, all the way down the food chain to the guy working the register at the corner market. The same fiduciary he owes to his customer is the fiduciary Congress owes to consumer, 401K customer or otherwise.
In a day of ICANN exploding TLD’s across the global market, in these days that the internet is facilitating the online crimes the National Association of State Secretaries and the International Securities commission are warning of, abuses ie. .forex, .payday, maybe even .fiduciary, Congress has got to wake up to grasping the problem is not the words some vested lobbyist focused Congress in on. The problem is once the thievery is discovered, how the victim seeks justice. Do away with F.I.N.R.A. and write as the rule change what I tweet, LINKEDIN, and Facebook, people… “If someone steals your wallet or car you call the cops, so why wouldn’t you call the cops if someone (fiduciary) steals your hard earned savings retirement money.”
I am the lady who crossed the political divide to protect others like me and Frank and Eli and Kevin and others daily increasing breached by Fiduciary list,
Carrie Devorah
The Investor Behind Bill H.R. 1098, the Investment Clients Protection Act of 2015
Thank you Congressman Keith Ellison, Thank you Senator Franken
The DOL has chosen to freezer tray definition of the word, “fiduciary.” This conversation of “fiduciary” has less to do with a definition of a word or market performance than it has to do with what happens after the crime of Breach of Fiduciary, 401k, broker, brokerage, investment advisor, financial consultant, arbitrator, mediator even lawyer have been discovered.
Wikipedia defines “Fiduciary” as “A fiduciary is a person who holds a legal or ethical relationship of trust with one or more other parties (person or group of persons). Typically, a fiduciary prudently takes care of money or other asset for another person. One party, for example a corporate trust company or the trust department of a bank, acts in a fiduciary capacity to the other one, who for example has entrusted funds to the fiduciary for safekeeping or investment. Likewise, asset managers —including managers of pension plans, endowments and other tax-exempt assets— are considered fiduciaries under applicable statutes and laws.[1] In a fiduciary relationship, one person, in a position of vulnerability, justifiably vests confidence, good faith, reliance, and trust in another whose aid, advice or protection is sought in some matter.;[2] In such a relation good conscience requires the fiduciary to act at all times for the sole benefit and interest of the one who trusts.”
Advisors are “fiduciaries”, there should be no question of that. Freezer tray? The term describes how Congress tends to compartmentalize and freeze out co-morbidity criminal fiduciary behaviors. Congress must expand the reach of this conversation to all aspects of the financial industry- broker, dealer, investment advisor- and, to insurance, too. Someone in Congress decided to include Insurance under the umbrella of the Securities Commissions. Why? I have a good answer that I never could have thought of…. Because the insurance companies invest clients premiums to make “what if” money. Hearing that, was the first time I understood the role of AIG in the market crash of 2008. The ‘house’ so to speak was gambling with client entrusted paid premiums, so “fiduciary” extends to the Insurance industry, too, in this Congressional conversation.
The best interest clause is not assumed or presumed, it is a requirement of someone who takes on responsibility of someone else’s “other,” in this case, money.
It does not occur to consumers that someone they know, read about or were introduced to can argue no legal obligation to trusting oversight of hard earned savings. Lawyers hired by thieving financial consultants- brokers, dealers, investment advisors- do a bang up job of arguing for accused clients, that no “fiduciary” obligation existed, an argument making one wonder what planet the lawyer got their legal degree from.
It is not in the nature of the trusting financial advisor client to hand over entrusted hard earned dollars needed for retirement to some stranger just because ‘they are a nice guy.’ Hard earned cash is handed over because a pitch has been made to the consumer with the representation of there being a return, a performance of “fiduciary.”
There are no effective requirements and laws in place that will help a consumer know better and faster if the customer is being played by a con:
- There is no law telling a financial consultant they must print their Financial Consultant number on ever document, business card, emails, court filings the financial consultant uses in the course of engaging new, past or potential clients
- There is no law making it illegal for a financial consultant to not put their fingerprints on their U4, and other documents under the oversight of F.I.N.R.A. the only S.R.O. that the S.E.C. has approved of despite Congress allowing for multiple S.R.O.s to be created
- There is no law stating that a financial consultant must disclose all potential, past and existing customer complaints to potential, past and existing clients
- There is no law requiring a financial consultant provide potential, past and existing clients to the S.R.O. under a criminal penalty
- There is no law requiring a financial fiduciary to give the client the fiduciaries passport, driver’s license, DOB and all other data relevant for I.D. theft
- There is no law requiring a financial fiduciary to give the client statements each month. The law says quarterly
- There is no law requiring a financial fiduciary to turn over to a client, on demand, a cover to cover copy of a client’s file just as one would get from the client’s doctor if requested
- There is no law requiring the S.E.C. to bring in to their loop, A.S.A.P. a quarterbacking to all agencies ie consumer, F.T.C., F.C.C. if the fiduciary has a radio show, the securities commissions, if the fiduciary is charged
- There is no law requiring the S.E.C. and commissions have the fiduciary’s clients notified A.S.A.P of the charges against the fiduciary (a) by requiring pop up alerts on the clients website at login, text messages and snail mail letters too.
- There is no law requiring that consumers be told to file a police report with local enforcement. What the consumer is told, over and over and over again is (i) file an internet complaint with the F.T.C and/or ‘we cannot advise you, we cannot give you legal advice, go consult an attorney”
Bernard Madoff. 401K or otherwise, does it make a difference when the end game, ends the same, fleeced, spirit broken.
Some securities commissions have hyperlinked to F.I.N.R.A. The FSC, financial securities committee stated they do not authorize private business.
Oh, yes they did, intentionally or unintentionally, Congress did, F.I.N.R.A. a big part of Congress’ fiduciary problem. F.I.N.R.A. is where fiduciaries go when they want to get away with a financial crime. Lawyers? They have an even sweeter way of getting away from fiduciary fraud. Lawyers threaten a complainant with defamation litigation or have others make calls on the lawyers behalf, off the written record.
As with many industries, people have been forced to hyphenate careers. In the financial industry, a 401(k) financial consultant can also be cross licensed as a broker, a dealer, and investment advisor and a baker and a candlestickmaker, as the expression goes.
F.I.N.R.A., the only broker-dealer regulator that the S.E.C. approved, even though Congress provided for competition, structured a sweet set up that confuses a customer’s legal complaint. F.I.N.R.A. has no oversight of Investment advisor complaints. That said F.I.N.R.A. boasts on its website to having 99.9% handling of investment client complaints in F.I.N.R.A.’s dispute resolution forum. There are over 70 F.I.N.R.A.’s dispute resolution forums around the country and, even, M.O.U.’s signed with Canada, Hong Kong, England and other countries.
A client who signs with an investment advisor is led to believe they are handling an investment advisor, not knowing their fiduciary will claim to be a broker and a client of a brokerage, hence, according to F.I.N.R.A. when legal push comes to financial shove.
It is a sweet deal for the financial consultant. The claim against the financial consultant is hid from public and law enforcement knowledge.
It is not a sweet deal for the client. Their claim against the financial consultant is hid from public and law enforcement knowledge where it could alert other harmed and potential clients of this bad fiduciaries crimes and alleged crimes.
F.I.N.R.A. alleges that F.I.N.R.A. has no responsibility to confirming if a forced arbitration is in the correct forum. The correct forum for a complaint against an investment advisor is the courts or a J.A.M.S. or Fed Arb dispute resolution forum.
Congress in a strange moment created Brokercheck for F.I.N.R.A. to hide crimes behind. Congress did not require that Brokercheck state, in letters that should be large enough to be read by seeing impaired people, that F.I.N.R.A. is a 501(c )(6) business league non-profit that the I.R.S. requires to collect dues from the business league members. Congress does not require the F.I.N.R.A. broker check to state, in large letters on page 1, that the information is provided by the F.I.N.R.A. dues paying member and is not vetted out by F.I.N.R.A., that civil and other actions against and by the financial fiduciary and may not be truthful, factual or complete. Congress did not require the S.R.O. to require its ‘member’ to file all those relevant documents in to the public record for review. Those documents are not see in F.I.N.R.A. arbitration and mediations. F.I.N.R.A. case managers and arbitrators have a success rate of not compelling Discovery of the F.I.N.R.A. member being sued, while at the same time forcing financial and personal exposure of the investment client who thought they had fiduciary oversight, in to the F.I.N.R.A. record that is then shared in the financial network even with the firm or financial consultant the client was complaining against.
F.I.N.R.A., where fiduciaries run to for cover, is the Vegas of the financial world. What goes in to F.I.N.R.A. does not come out.
What good is the balance and check to fiduciary if the financial advisors history is hidden, if the voting record of the arbitrators and mediators is hidden, if the case decisions by arbitrators and mediators are not published. W.I.P.O., the world intellectual property organization, publishes its list of arbitrators, mediators and their decisions online. The S.E.C. publishes its proceedings online. Why doesn’t Congress force the same of F.I.N.R.A. that is approved by the S.E.C., after all F.I.N.R.A. claims quasi government status at the same time alleging that F.I.N.R.A. is authorized by an act of Congress.
The point to take away is that with all the minutia that Congress is nitpicking on here, what needs to be addressed is how this rogue private entity is what the investment client is being misled in to. To hell with arguing “fiduciary standard” if where that argument takes place is in a forum that has been deceiving Congress for years, testifying before Congress, lobbying Congress, all in the name of investor protection.
Scenarios alluded to above are not hypothetical. I learned the hard way about being a trusting client entrusting my life savings to a fiduciary. I learned the hard way that fiduciary is a debate term for lawyers after monies are stolen. I learned the hard way that a client’s loss, a client’s suffering from being betrayed is not a thought of consideration in the process. I learned the hard way that as great a loss of funds stolen is how a client is left feeling- broken trying to figure out what they didn’t see, what they should have asked, and how did this happen to me, what is wrong with me.
I learned the hard way that even if one asks all the right questions there is always one more question the client did not know to ask after all, F.I.N.R.A., S.I.P.C., N.A.S.A.A., P.I.A.B.A. even the S.E.C. give false sense of representation hence a misplaced sense of trust. Ask clients the meaning of the words a member of FINRA and SIPC on the financial statement form. Clients assume those words are a Good HouseKeeping Seal of Approval. No. I learned the hard way all those words mean are just that, they are a member. There is no intent the firm or financial consultant is honest.
I learned the hard way that F.I.N.R.A. does ‘clean’ up backgrounds of financial consultants to whom life savings are entrusted.
I learned the hard way that F.I.N.R.A. on the way out of a F.I.N.R.A. proceeding, if the investor wants to get pennies back on their lost dollars sought, seeks expungment of claims against a fiduciary financial consultant who is misled in to the F.I.N.R.A. D.R.S. process.
I learned the hard way that F.I.N.R.A. on the way in to a F.I.N.R.A. D.R.S. proceeding that F.I.N.R.A. requires a confidentiality agreement of the proceedings, a silencer with a penalty if the proceedings “confidence” is violated.
I learned the hard way that F.I.N.R.A. misleads the court of the legal oversight of F.I.N.R.A. Dispute Resolution. One would hope the Courts actually did diligence to read paperwork and do research as to case precedence or correctness. They do not, partially blamed on how burned the courts are with cases. Part of the problem is F.I.N.R.A. is writing its own rules. Let me explain. A recent appellee to the D.C. court showed the court that F.I.N.R.A. says that F.I.N.R.A. D.R.S. is compliant to the F.A.A., the Federal Arbitration Act. The Federal Arbitration Act states it is relevant to Maritime Law. The A.B.A. had not been asked the question before to think about it.
I learned the hard way to think about things like that. As shared with the A.B.A. and others, financial fiduciaries are licensed on state by state, hence should be adjudicated under State Law, under the U.C.C., the Universal Commercial Code that does provide for investment consultant disputes. Financial fiduciaries are not licensed federally.
I learned the hard way that F.I.N.R.A. has distorted Congress’ intentions of the Investment Protector Act of 1933. Any and all D.R.S. that F.I.N.R.A. has overseen have hidden crimes by fiduciaries away from law enforcement, FINCEN and Congress.
Congress can get a grasp of those numbers. F.I.N.R.A. won’t produce them. Some, not all, F.I.N.R.A. disciplinary actions are locatable here, http://www.finra.org/industry/disciplinary-actions, at least until as far back as 1996. The complaints that are expunged, going through the F.I.N.R.A. process or the ones that F.I.N.R.A. states happened by circumventing the F.I.N.R.A. process, without F.I.N.R.A. knowing, can still be found. There are ways.
Try looking up Bernard Madoff. Madoff was a fiduciary, too. F.I.N.R.A. stated in 2009 that F.I.N.R.A. had no idea of Madoff’s crimes. Bernie said “they did.” Mr. Madoff told the truth http://www.centerforcopyrightintegrity.com/congress-created-madoff.html “They knew” Madoff was selling No Product as far back as 1963.
Problem was and still is that Congress wrote the laws that makes this conversation over “fiduciary” moot. Congress set benchmarks of $25,000 and $100,000 of fines along with temporary disbarment for crimes you and I got to jail for, for crimes far greater than the cigarette selling that put Eric Garner “I cant breathe” in to the system. Mr. Garner was fingerprinted, had his mug shot taken, was locked up, lost his right to vote, had to check the box when he came out of prison then saw recidivism as his only option to making a living while Madoff and the others that F.I.N.R.A. did not turn in to law enforcement were recidivis, too, stealing from clients until they, too, like Madoff turned themselves in or like Wolf Of Wall Street got caught for something that led to their financial crimes being discovered.
The death of Eric Garner lies on Congress. Cops would rather go after Madoffs than Eric. Congress has a fiduciary to, acknowledging that telling the S.E.C. to send cases to the U.S. Attorney without understand the S.E.C. system is plain dumb.
The S.E.C. like Congress is neutered. Congress and the S.E.C. lack the power to lock thieving fiduciaries up for crimes perpetrated against trusting people. Congress needs cops.
Congress needs to understand the S.E.C. is run like a business. Meetings are held to discuss what case has potential to be sexy and look good in the public eye. Then of those cases, the S.E.C. attorneys are limited with what information they get access to, moreso, when the people that are wronged are under the misbelief that F.I.N.R.A. has weight behind a F.I.N.R.A. award that the Courts, blindly see as binding and authentic when it is not, harming persons that F.I.N.R.A. shut down. Congress needs to get a grasp on what is real in the world.
The legal fiduciary lacks too. One would think lawyers actually dug documents. They don’t. Investigators do. Lawyers look at case precedence. As do judges. Lawyers, well, there is that breed that races cases around the country hoping some paper shifting gets a case settled, fast, before on to the next case. The fact is that despite F.I.N.R.A.s website stating lawyers must conform to local rule, F.I.N.R.A. has fanned that falsehood letting lawyers who are not licensed in the local jurisdiction the consumer case against the fiduciary has been assigned to commence interstate communication to argue the matter, possibly settle the matter, all the while not being licensed under local law.
The greater tragedy is that most local bar associations, U.S. attorneys, city attorneys, law enforcement, legislators. etc who all have fiduciary to their residents have never heard of F.I.N.R.A.
The even greater tragedy is that across the country all local securities commissions are misled to believe that F.I.N.R.A. is government not a business league, a private non profit business, the “New NASD Holding Co.” is how it is described in publicly filed papers.
The greatest tragedy is the team that wrote the Counts up against Madoff did not know of the priors that F.I.N.R.A. had in the F.I.N.R.A. record.
Congress needs to know the waste of the investment of time into parsing “fiduciary” before the crime has happened. Criminals always find, yet another way, to break the laws. Congress needs to invest time into mitigating harm to clients breached by a fiduciary. It is like getting robbed a second time when lawyers and others use the law to keep matters out of the Courts, fingering clients as the bad one, publicly shamed in records. I learned the hard way.
A breached person needs a simpler way to cut through the rabbit holes we are sent through, rules that cannot run more than x pages, rules that are written in simple plain English a 5th grader can read. That is what the fiduciary breacher counts on, the lawyer who wanted quick settlement counts on, the business league the breacher and the lawyer belong to. They count on the supposed safeguards like ethics committees to protect them to. Do you want to know the definition of an ethics committee? It is a .org, a (dot) org, a non profit most likely itself a business league that collects business from its members in order to subsist. The harmed investor/ 401K owner is not their concern nor allegiance.
The fiduciary that needs to be implemented here is not the definition of this word “fiduciary” applied only to 401K’s but the interpretation of the word “fiduciary” as it needs to be reviewed- from the top, Congress, all the way down the food chain to the guy working the register at the corner market. The same fiduciary he owes to his customer is the fiduciary Congress owes to consumer, 401K customer or otherwise.
In a day of ICANN exploding TLD’s across the global market, in these days that the internet is facilitating the online crimes the National Association of State Secretaries and the International Securities commission are warning of, abuses ie. .forex, .payday, maybe even .fiduciary, Congress has got to wake up to grasping the problem is not the words some vested lobbyist focused Congress in on. The problem is once the thievery is discovered, how the victim seeks justice. Do away with F.I.N.R.A. and write as the rule change what I tweet, LINKEDIN, and Facebook, people… “If someone steals your wallet or car you call the cops, so why wouldn’t you call the cops if someone (fiduciary) steals your hard earned savings retirement money.”
I am the lady who crossed the political divide to protect others like me and Frank and Eli and Kevin and others daily increasing breached by Fiduciary list,
Carrie Devorah
The Investor Behind Bill H.R. 1098, the Investment Clients Protection Act of 2015
Thank you Congressman Keith Ellison, Thank you Senator Franken